Bernie Sanders Proposes A Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United

Just sent emails to both my senators requiring their support for the amendment.

Lets see how Fox, Rush, and the pubs/baggies spin this one as being the wrong choice for Americans.

I sent one to mine as well... but he was probably already going to support it. lol

Sanders isn't the only voice or person working toward the goal of returning the power to the people. Sign up here and join the cause, create or attend an event near you to spread the word and the effort: http://movetoamend.org/

lets think: Thanks for URL.

I would argue that unions would be covered by this proposal.

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

a) It would be quite a stretch to say unions are natural persons, and b) unions, at least in a sense, promote business interests. Their members are interested in selling their labor.

fredegrar, agreed it seems to cover it, but having no faith in politicians. I would much rather see it spelled out. Corporations and Unions are not people.

If it says INC after the name.. it is a corporation. Why exactly do you feel the need to politicize a topic that we basically all agree on?

Unions essentially ARE corporations, they are a business that provides services to its members. They are legal fictions like corporations.

Are unions incorporated? Yes. Why is this a Republican talking point every last single time there is a discussion on Newsvine, as if the Democrats are trying to outlaw the GOP corporate sponsors only??? Legally there is no way to do that. And this also includes George Soros' corporations.

And this also includes George Soros' corporations.

Don't forget ACORN. Never mind that they bit the dust a couple years ago... most Republicans still seem to think they're around manipulating the vote like it was the Tammany Hall days. Well, non-profits aren't "natural persons" either...

Why is this a Republican talking point every last single time there is a discussion on Newsvine, as if the Democrats are trying to outlaw the GOP corporate sponsors only?

I would say it's because whenever a Republican suggests something similar they're met with shouts of union busting and an attack on the middle class.

Matt: Probably because their policies and laws are aimed DIRECTLY and ONLY at unions while either leaving corporate interests alone or actively pursuing the agenda of said corporate interests.

Probably because their policies and laws are aimed DIRECTLY and ONLY at unions while either leaving corporate interests alone or actively pursuing the agenda of said corporate interests.

You'd have to have a policy or law to point at before making that statement, to my knowledge, there are none - you're welcome to find a couple to enlighten me though. From my perspective they're shouted down before anything gets written down.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_bd72b5b6-c769-11e0-8265-001cc4c002e0.html%20

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_bd72b5b6-c769-11e0-8265-001cc4c002e0.html%20

Unrelated to campaign finance. The only thing it has that relates to campaign financing is:

It also ended the practice of mandatory union dues, which promises to dry up funds used for lobbying and campaign financing.

Which is a direct corollary to, how many liberals are boycotting Target, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Koch Industries, etc.,? The only difference of course being that there's no ramifications for boycotting a corporation while there is for boycotting a union.

He is a rare man, a politician I trust. Can't think of a one in my state.

Itchy, Are you from Texas too? ;>)

Once again... corporations were given privilege without being able to be held responsible for their actions. Something the individual can't excape. Exactly what what Citizens United was all about.

And the R's condemn Democratic activist judges!

We need to go back when the only money came from are taxes. Carter and Reagan was the last time this was done. Reagan second term special money came in.

I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one.

Michelle,

That would be a cold day in Rick Perry's Hell!

Regards

Monkey99 - A-1 commentary. I'll add a cherry atop, even though it's been said by someone else here on the vine and whose handle I don't recall.

"When I see a corporation being electrocuted in Texas, maybe then I'll cut the SCOTUS some slack on their dumbass decision".

BTW, it's been heavily paraphrased and expanded by me, though the gist of what was originally said remains intact. Thank you all, especially Mr. Sanders.

I'm just repeating the central issues. I take no credit for any of it, because Senator Sanders can easily say it better than I can.

I'm sure there are many who have said the same, because they are true. Notice the distinct lack of detractors to those points? After all the bluster has subsided, the truth of each of those is left. There is no dissent, because dissent is indefensible.

Even the bit about the teabaggers.

Bernie Sanders is the man..

BRAVO BERNIE! We are with you in Seattle!

he is no menace , on most issues nobody pays any attention to him

mitch - Bernie has red hair?

Bob - wrong.

Shelby - right. : )

I generally do not insult other posters, but mitch j is the menace. He generally hits and runs with his one-liners, usually about "bam-bam."

redsfan: Thanks for this seed. I wrote my senators and representative, encouraging them to support Bernie Sanders. This is truly an important issue; Washington will remain broken until U.S. citizens are represented, not corporations, unions, and other special interests.

mitch j wrote:

Sanders is a red menace.

in this, he represents his constituents well.

Menace? Because he represents his constituents, while most of 'em represent the banksters?

I have to say, I sometimes wonder about your logic.

Mary:

Yep!  And those one and two liner cheaps shots are usually hit and run with nothing to back them up.  Its called trolling.  

Republicans can't stand discussions like this where someone like Bernie Saunders can get praise in post after post after post.  So they will try to jump in to divert attention.  They are not trying to add to a discussion with substantive content, their only goal is derailing the discussion, diverting attention away from the main topic, insert brainless talking points.  

I wish he were younger. If he were, I bet he'd run. (1941)

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is indeed an old-timer. He truly is the one and only full-fledged American politicians who embodies some of the old and some of the new and never had an eye for anything more than for the people of Vermont and the country in general.

He's part throwback to the country's glory days of the 70's and 80's and part of the country's dissension and turmoil of the 90's and 2000's.

Very sadly, most Americans view Bernie Sanders as someone who resembles your "senile great-grandfather" who somehow hangs onto life in his rocking chair, while you impatiently wait for your share of his modest wealth, that the executor will reveal after his ultimate demise.

And that is very, very sad, but ain't it the truth?

....as someone who resembles your "senile great-grandfather"....

Nope, I save that description for the last GOP Presidential nominee.

Bernie Sanders has my support.

PowerisKnowledge

I agree!

Illegal immigrants have lots of social security numbers.

Not to piss in your red popcorn but, corporations have tax ID numbers.. and so do many people who have had their identities stolen.

Joe,

You do realize you just blew a big gaping hole through e-verify, right ?

Personally, I think JPAS is a much better and effective system, but that's a different argument for a different day.

Your post makes no sense. The ad is automatically placed there by newsvine's advertising engine.

It is vague but broad constructionists like it that way.

It has as much chance of passing as the Flag Burning Amendment or the repeal of the Second Amendment.

There is no justification for any corporation to keep it's charter if the overall effect of it's existence isn't a benefit to the nation.

That's deep, that's very deep - tell this to every mom and pop shop you ever visited, I am sure they'll appreciate you wisdom, tovarisch.

Why, you don't think mom and pop shops benefit the nation? Why not? They contribute to the GDP, they compete fairly, unless shown otherwise, they provide employment. Why do you lump them in where they don't belong. I said nothing about fair-dealing, competitive, non-polluting commercial enterprises, so don't go off on your perverted interpretation of what I posted.

But thanks for the characterization about me, comrade.

Why, you don't think mom and pop shops benefit the nation? Why not?

Unlike you, I have no doubt that they benefit the nation. Unlike you, I know for a fact it is neither in their charter nor in their mind when they formed it. As for the overall effect who is to judge? I am sure Blackwater's charter is to benefit the nation - and they did in their own way, which you are about to dispute.

Economic activity, itself, benefits the nation. And as I said above, society's "investment" in the corporation is that shielding of investors from personal liability; society should receive return on that investment in line with how much that shielding is worth, and in line what the investors receive.

Economic activity, itself, benefits the nation. And as I said above, society's "investment" in the corporation is that shielding of investors from personal liability; society should receive return on that investment in line with how much that shielding is worth, and in line what the investors receive.

Bravo! That's a point which is lost on many members of the Left. The government cannot generate economic activity because the government has no money and no product. The only money government has comes from taxes. Without the evil corporations and other businesses, there is no economic activity, and hence nothing to tax.

The usual reason for forming a corporation or an LLC / LLP is to limit personal liability. The shareholder of a corporation, member of an LLC, or partner of an LLP is liable, in most cases, only for the amount of money invested in the endeavor. That money is at risk: the investor can lose it all. But the investor usually can't be held liable for the corporate entity's liabilities (except in some cases of criminal activity).

The Left tends to believe that there is something evil about this. But it is what allows investors to fund enterprises that ultimately employ people and generate the economic activity that fuels society -- and government -- especially when the undertakings have a high risk of failure, as is often the case for emerging technologies, "green" energy, sustainable agriculture, and so forth.

Speaking of "green" technologies, let me ask a question: How many people here would invest in risky, "green" start-up businesses if not only their investment, but their entire net worth -- their bank accounts, their retirement money, their homes, the money they put away for their kids to go to college -- were at risk if the company were to fail? I sure wouldn't. So the concept of limited liability is vital even to the technologies by which the Left hope to save the earth itself.

That's why to those of us on the Right, this pervasive hatred of corporations and other businesses articulated by many of those of the left is baffling. Business fuels literally everything in our society. And yes, there are abuses, and even crimes, committed by some business entities. But the way to address those is through prosecution of the guilty, not by crippling the entire private sector.

However, you missed half of what I wrote:

Economic activity, itself, benefits the nation. And as I said above, society's "investment" in the corporation is that shielding of investors from personal liability; society should receive return on that investment in line with how much that shielding is worth, and in line what the investors receive.

I'm not "on the left" or on the right. I'm actually a true moderate; hopefully the reflection of what a true consensus-builder would project. Corporations are good, because they contribute to (but contrary to what you implied, are not the only source of) economy activity, just like other types of companies. In addition, corporations must provide ROI to society specifically in return for the benefits society provides corporations that it doesn't provide to sole proprietorships and partnerships, commensurate both with the costs to society of providing that benefit and the value of that benefit to investors in corporations.

society should receive return on that investment in line with how much that shielding is worth, and in line what the investors receive.

And how much is that and what exactly is that? What is the cost to society for providing financial/ legal protections to investors?

There are reasons they are afforded such protections and it has nothing to do with society 'providing' anything.

Shareholders generally have little to no say in day to day operations. Their ONLY affiliation with the company is most likely that of stock ownership. Therefore it stands to reason, the only liability they should have is the value of that stock ownership.

Sole proprietors and partners on the other hand ARE, by DEFINITION, involved with the day to day operation of the business and thus directly liable to for the business decisions.

If you owned stock in BP at the time of the oil spill, do you think you OWE society something for that spill when you had NO involvement? Many people are unaware of the stocks they carry in IRA's and 401k's. But they owe a debt to society for being owners or a corporation?

And how much is that and what exactly is that?

Reasonable people disagree about how much and in what form. The first step, though, is to get the "unreasonable" people to grant that there is such an obligation, then we can focus on engaging in the give-and-take associated with determining precisely how much and in what form.

There are reasons they are afforded such protections and it has nothing to do with society 'providing' anything.

I can respect your preference that corporations be able to exploit the resources of society without the corporation structure being oriented to benefit society overall, but that's not just.

Therefore it stands to reason, the only liability they should have is the value of that stock ownership.

"I was just following orders," is not a valid defense for negative actions, and especially not for fostering through financial investment a pattern of disregard for what's best for society overall.

If you owned stock in BP at the time of the oil spill, do you think you OWE society something for that spill when you had NO involvement?

Rather, I respect the liability protection that the corporation structure affords investors, and acknowledge that that grants to society the right and obligation to ensure that the corporation structure is always oriented towards what is best for society overall.

The clerk who added that note, btw, just happened to be a former railroad baron himself, and good friends with the chief justice.

If the 14th Amendment just addressed former slaves' issues why is it still so prominent? Because it has been used to justify all manner of overreaching. I cannot envision the SCOTUS backtracking that far. Guess you are just going to have to live with the fly in the soup.

Since the proposed amendment does not even mention the Democrats' biggest contributor, the unions, and since it has an enormous loophole ("do not limit the freedom of the press"), I doubt it will get any serious consideration. It would be too contentious and too controversial.

You are as ridiculous and uninformed as Ron Paul wanting to go back to the gold standard.

Evidence? Oh, I forgot. You righties don't believe in actual evidence to back up your BS claims.

But they sure do hew true to all their most well trodden delusional paths, eh?

Taxes = Democrats, sorry... DemoCRAT.

Tax cuts = jobs and increased wealth for all. Yippee!!

Regulations = un-needed, businesses best regulates themselves. Didn't you KNOW that??

Government = cannot do anything right. We're just trying to help it succeed!

Christianity = what TEAbagsbelieve in is the natural law of the land; all other factions of religion are just meaningless devil spawned cults.

Politics = anything goes! but don't do "it" to us or we'll cry you a mighty river.

Corporations = People!

People = Communists (if they're not GOPbag "conservatives")

"Conservatives" = the only (real) people; those whose opinions actually matter.

Abortion = Murder!

Murdering Healthcare Providers = Working to God's Ends.

Patriots = Doing what we think is best for America; the rest of you are un-American sobs.

Science = just another godless religion

Global Weather Change = A massive conspiracy based on science

GWC deniers = thoughtful reasonable intelligent people.

Theory = a wild guess

Evolution = an unproven massive conspiracy based on science; just a theory

Creationism = accurate modern interpretation of God's Truths; a Fact.

etc etc et al...

Michelle, read "Gulag Archipelago" if you need evidence.

Joe, using logic on the true believers? Tell me how it turns out.

Michelle - please, please, please tell me how good the live in the Soviet Union was back then, or how great things are in China today. I can't wait to hear it.

I lived in China for three years.

For the rapidly increasing middle class there (as opposed to the decreasing middle class in the United States), things are pretty good. Obviously, that can change for the better or worse at any moment.

Roger, sometimes it works at least temporarily. For example, once one of them was going on about whites and slavery and I pointed out that free black Americans owned slaves too and she shut right up and deleted her comments.

Joe, I think you just got lucky on that one.